2013 (4) TMI 876 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the sale deed executed during the currency of an injunction order.
2. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, estoppel, waiver, and lis pendens.
3. Validity of the decree passed in Title Suit No. 13 of 1977.
4. Whether the plaintiff acquired title based on the sale deed dated 9.11.1973.
5. Entitlement of the plaintiff to any decree or relief.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Sale Deed Executed During the Currency of an Injunction Order:
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that Bhuneshwar Tanti was not entitled to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiffs due to the injunction order dated 6.5.1971 in Suit No. 49 of 1970. The lower appellate court, however, held that the injunction did not survive once the suit was returned for presentation in the competent court, and thus the sale deed dated 9.11.1973 was valid. The Supreme Court, referencing Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and Vidur Impex and Traders (P) Ltd., concluded that the sale deed executed during the operative period of the injunction was unlawful.

2. Whether the Suit is Barred by Law of Limitation, Estoppel, Waiver, and Lis Pendens:
The lower appellate court found that the sale deed dated 9.11.1973 was not hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The Supreme Court did not specifically address this issue in detail but implied that the lower appellate court's findings were incorrect due to the unlawful nature of the sale deed.

3. Validity of the Decree Passed in Title Suit No. 13 of 1977:
The lower appellate court held that the decrees in Title Suit No. 13 of 1977 were fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court did not explicitly overturn this finding but focused on the legality of the sale deed under the injunction order.

4. Whether the Plaintiff Acquired Title Based on the Sale Deed Dated 9.11.1973:
The trial court ruled against the plaintiffs, stating they were aware of the injunction order, which was binding. The lower appellate court disagreed, but the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's view, emphasizing that the sale deed executed during the injunction was unlawful.

5. Entitlement of the Plaintiff to Any Decree or Relief:
The Supreme Court concluded that the learned Single Judge of the High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal without recognizing the substantial question of law regarding the legality of the sale deed executed during the injunction. The case was remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal with directions to frame appropriate substantial questions of law and decide the appeal accordingly.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal, emphasizing the need to address the substantial question of law regarding the legality of the sale deed executed during the injunction period.